2009 Car and Driver 10 Best Cars - no Lexus, no surprise?

N8N wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:33 pm, Steve > wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>> \
>>
>>> Have you *driven* a VW? They really are head and shoulders above
>>> their competition, and have been since the introduction of the first
>>> GTI.
>> Well, I drove the first GTI, which is why I haven't driven one since. I
>> like keeping my fillings *in* my teeth when I start the engine....
>>
>> Yes, I know modern VWs are a far cry from a Wabbit GTI, but I still have
>> never been able to get the "VW = crap" association washed out of my brain.
>
> Diff'rent strokes, I guess, the one car that I've owned and sold that
> I regret selling to this day was an '84 Scirocco. I had a Wabbit GTI
> as well, and the only reason the 'roccet gets the nod was that the
> Scirocco was German built while the Wabbit was Westmoreland built, and
> therefore had a more attractive dash and interior. Other than that
> they're pretty much the same car, and I'm an idiot for selling the
> 'roccet
>
> nate


I had a cow-orker who owned a circa '84 GTI, and kept that thing until
maybe 2001? 2002? I forget. In its day, it was a scary-fast and nimble
little thing (if you could handle the gobs of torque-steer). But I lost
track of how many accessory brackets (PS, AC, alternator) shook
themselves to pieces on that car- that was the ROUGHEST 4-banger I've
ever felt, and that includes the VW-based engine in my Dad's
gone-and-not-missed 78 Plymouth Horizon (which also tended to break
alternator brackets and carb mounting flanges from the vibration). I can
understand the desire not to waste a few horsepower on balance shafts
and just live with the natural 2nd order imbalance of an inline-4, but
HOLY COW! The early Mopar 2.2 had no balance shafts either, and it
wasn't half that unpleasant.

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
>>> Um, a Maxima *is* a midsize car.
>> Not unless they make them way bigger than our '98 was.
>
> They do, at least for some values of "way". (And sometimes
> "weigh.")


Actually, didn't the Maxima get *downsized* sometime within the last 6-7
years, basically swapping places with the Altima as it grew to
balloon-like proportions (and appearance)?

> Actually, didn't the Maxima get *downsized* sometime within the last 6-7
> years, basically swapping places with the Altima as it grew to
> balloon-like proportions (and appearance)?

The generations of the two lines leapfrog each other by a couple of
years, and there was a period in the early 2000s when the Altima was
very subtly bigger.

The '09 Maxima is a tiny bit smaller than the outgoing generation of
Maxima in height and length but is a bit taller. It's a little wider
than the present Altima but shares the same "platform." They rated it
at some 20 more horsepower too, with the best engine option. I think
that instead of "swapping places" with the Altima they were trying to
position it as a higher product -- I'm tempted to dust off the
obsolete term "personal luxury car" for the new Maxima, despite its
four door configuration.

Supposedly the Maxima has a better chassis and suspension and brakes,
as well as more amenities and gadgets, compared to even a high option
Altima. It's also noticeably more expensive (well, sure).

Of course set its design and construction in motion before the
economy went off in the weeds. Reading between the lines on the Web,
it looks like a lot of people are weighing its merits against the 3.5-
liter Altima (a couple hundred pounds and several thousand dollars
lighter, and still with the possibility of a manual tranny) as well as
against other makes. Dunno if that's quite what Nissan had in mind;
but then, the present state of the economy is not really what anybody
had in mind...

--Joe

Ad absurdum per aspera turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>
>> Actually, didn't the Maxima get *downsized* sometime within the last 6-7
>> years, basically swapping places with the Altima as it grew to
>> balloon-like proportions (and appearance)?
>
> The generations of the two lines leapfrog each other by a couple of
> years, and there was a period in the early 2000s when the Altima was
> very subtly bigger.
>
> The '09 Maxima is a tiny bit smaller than the outgoing generation of
> Maxima in height and length but is a bit taller. It's a little wider
> than the present Altima but shares the same "platform." They rated it
> at some 20 more horsepower too, with the best engine option. I think
> that instead of "swapping places" with the Altima they were trying to
> position it as a higher product -- I'm tempted to dust off the
> obsolete term "personal luxury car" for the new Maxima, despite its
> four door configuration.
>
> Supposedly the Maxima has a better chassis and suspension and brakes,
> as well as more amenities and gadgets, compared to even a high option
> Altima. It's also noticeably more expensive (well, sure).
>
> Of course set its design and construction in motion before the
> economy went off in the weeds. Reading between the lines on the Web,
> it looks like a lot of people are weighing its merits against the 3.5-
> liter Altima (a couple hundred pounds and several thousand dollars
> lighter, and still with the possibility of a manual tranny) as well as
> against other makes. Dunno if that's quite what Nissan had in mind;
> but then, the present state of the economy is not really what anybody
> had in mind...
>
> --Joe

Interesting analysis. I hadn't thought of things in that way. As for the
Maxima, I like that it is getting taller. If I were into buying a car for
me (as opposed to my wife) I'd look at either the HHR, the Honda Passport
or the Scion xB. Those all look nice and tall.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock

On Feb 3, 9:31*am, Steve > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 2:33 pm, Steve > wrote:
> >> N8N wrote:
>
> >> \
>
> >>> Have you *driven* a VW? *They really are head and shoulders above
> >>> their competition, and have been since the introduction of the first
> >>> GTI.
> >> Well, I drove the first GTI, which is why I haven't driven one since. I
> >> like keeping my fillings *in* my teeth when I start the engine....
>
> >> Yes, I know modern VWs are a far cry from a Wabbit GTI, but I still have
> >> never been able to get the "VW = crap" association washed out of my brain.
>
> > Diff'rent strokes, I guess, the one car that I've owned and sold that
> > I regret selling to this day was an '84 Scirocco. *I had a Wabbit GTI
> > as well, and the only reason the 'roccet gets the nod was that the
> > Scirocco was German built while the Wabbit was Westmoreland built, and
> > therefore had a more attractive dash and interior. *Other than that
> > they're pretty much the same car, and I'm an idiot for selling the
> > 'roccet
>
> > nate
>
> I had a cow-orker who owned a circa '84 GTI, and kept that thing until
> maybe 2001? 2002? I forget. In its day, it was a scary-fast and nimble
> little thing (if you could handle the gobs of torque-steer). But I lost
> track of how many accessory brackets (PS, AC, alternator) shook
> themselves to pieces on that car- that was the ROUGHEST 4-banger I've
> ever felt, and that includes the VW-based engine in my Dad's
> gone-and-not-missed 78 Plymouth Horizon (which also tended to break
> alternator brackets and carb mounting flanges from the vibration). I can
> understand the desire not to waste a few horsepower on balance shafts
> and just live with the natural 2nd order imbalance of an inline-4, but
> HOLY COW! The early Mopar 2.2 had no balance shafts either, and it
> wasn't half that unpleasant.

There was something wrong then, because I don't recall any of my old
VWs being noticeably unpleasant. There's a bit of a buzz, yes, but no
worse than, say, a GM 3400. They did come from the factory with
pretty weak front engine mounts (front of engine, that is, not front
of car) in what I assume was an attempt to tame what vibration there
was. Unfortunately they were weak enough that on an older car they'd
need to be replaced otherwise they'd go metal to metal with
predictable results. Must have just been the rubber degrading over
time, as it wasn't in an area that was prone to getting sprayed with
oil from a leaky seal/gasket/whatever. The right fix would be to use
a mount with stiffer rubber from a Diesel-engined car, but many shops
would simply use the part that the book told them to, which would fail
again, etc. Also when replacing a mount one should loosen all of them
and rock the engine/trans around to let it settle; installing a mount
without doing this could make it fail quicker than it would otherwise.

I ran a Diesel mount on my 'roccet and didn't notice it being
particularly unpleasant. If you tried to give it any appreciable
amount of throttle below 1500 RPM it would buzz like hell but I
wouldn't consider that being particularly kind to the bearings, and
the solution to that problem is easy. Balance shafts wouldn't have
helped with that anyway - that's not a balance issue, that's the
operator lugging the engine combined with a low cylinder count. My
944 has a 2.5 liter 4-cyl. (*with* balance shafts) and it's even worse
in that respect.

nate

In article >,
says...
>
> "David Z" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> My personal favorite: from the 10Best Cars from Third World
> >> Countries--Number 3, Chevrolet Chevette, Lakewood, Georgia.
> >
> > I haven't a clue what you're talking about and I suspect that most readers
> > here don't either.
> >
>
> Some of us get it.
>
>
>
Remember when American companies manufactured cars?
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

In article >,
man of machines > wrote:

> i got a laugh the other day when a detroit newspaper showed a lexus getting
> 16 mpg's and a yukon getting 22 on the highway

When you pay that much for a vehicle, MPG is very secondary.